Great. Now I can look forward to talk about how young we are in 2017 and if I'll just wait until that class matures we might have a winning season.
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Football Rebuilds
- Thread starter buffaholic
- Start date
Great. Now I can look forward to talk about how young we are in 2017 and if I'll just wait until that class matures we might have a winning season.
I think we might have found the problem, Ponce de Leon's fountain of youth is actually in the Dal Ward.
BlackNGold
Club Member
Tedford turned Cal around with recruiting, hard work, and good coaching.. It is not always about recruiting rankings but getting difference makers...filling in holes with JUCOs, etc. Snyder at KSU brought in a lot of JUCOs to turn around KSU. Gary Barnett will tell you that CU has to improve recruiting(he has said it a couple of times almost as an impassioned plea), that is what he did at Northwestern.
You cannot keep rolling the dice on projects to the high percentage that MacIntyre does and expect to win. The guys that have turned around programs have done it by getting players that can get it done. Fans complain that we lack talent but then say recruiting is not the problem really confuse me. What is the point of the UNC comparison? They never recruit outside of the top 50 and are in the top 25 about half the time. Ditto for Washington, when you have talent that can compete at this level it is easier to coach.
You cannot keep rolling the dice on projects to the high percentage that MacIntyre does and expect to win. The guys that have turned around programs have done it by getting players that can get it done. Fans complain that we lack talent but then say recruiting is not the problem really confuse me. What is the point of the UNC comparison? They never recruit outside of the top 50 and are in the top 25 about half the time. Ditto for Washington, when you have talent that can compete at this level it is easier to coach.
I think we need to push to the middle of the pack in the conference with average star ratings in the 2.9 to 3.1 range. With good coaching/schemes, player retention, and strategic use of the JUCO/transfer market the Buffs would be positioned to move ahead of programs like UA, Utah, Cal, Wazzu, OSU & Washington in the conference while also being able to win its share against USC/UCLA/Oregon/Stanford/ASU with their Top 25 level recruiting.
Buffenuf
massive tool
I'm absolutely sure I'll grab another beer while reading this drivel. So there! Sheesh!
Better recruiting, more maturity in the trenches on both sides of the ball, better play calling and an upgrade in coaches at certain key positions, like ST/OL. Where're Steve Stripling or Ronnie Bradford coaching these days?
Kentucky has been a program that many on here have pointed to as they've been recruiting at a high level as measured by the services (without the usual wins to drive that recruiting).
Year, Record (Conference), Rivals Recruiting Ranking
Under Joker Phillips
2010, (2-6), 50
2011, (2-6), 62
2012, (0-8), 63
Under Mark Stoops
2013, (0-8), 29
2014, (2-6), 17
2015, (2-6), 35
The natives are growing restless... I haven't studied it enough to know if the rankings were misleading due to lack of getting in, or if there's been attrition issues, or if they're just not developing the guys they've brought in. Or maybe they got a bunch of Yuri's. Not sure.
Year, Record (Conference), Rivals Recruiting Ranking
Under Joker Phillips
2010, (2-6), 50
2011, (2-6), 62
2012, (0-8), 63
Under Mark Stoops
2013, (0-8), 29
2014, (2-6), 17
2015, (2-6), 35
The natives are growing restless... I haven't studied it enough to know if the rankings were misleading due to lack of getting in, or if there's been attrition issues, or if they're just not developing the guys they've brought in. Or maybe they got a bunch of Yuri's. Not sure.
There's actually quite a few - in fact most true turnarounds. Duke would be one. Vanderbilt is another. And really every turnaround I looked at that was successful, the new staff recruited at about the level that school had been recruiting at until they started to see some success on the field. Baylor - recruiting didn't pick up until wins came.
Maybe I'm not looking at the right schools. I'm open to looking at ALL of them that were turnarounds and finding correlation.
BlackNGold
Club Member
Baylor turned it around because they got a 4 star difference maker who was ranked as the 4th best dual-threat QB in the country. Briles also went out and got some highly rated 3 stars like Kendall Wright (offers from Oklahoma, Okie State, Nebraska). Briles 2nd class was full of guys that had P5 offers - 4 future NFL players in that class. He also filled holes by going the Juco route. Briles is noted as a great recruiter as demonstrated by a quote from ESPN "The program is experiencing unprecedented success, and none of it would've happened without Briles' ability on the recruiting trail."
The continued claim that turnarounds occur without recruiting are just false. You do not need top 10 classes but you have to find a few difference makers to fill in around solid players. Once you have that in place you have to coach them up and motivate them.
The continued claim that turnarounds occur without recruiting are just false. You do not need top 10 classes but you have to find a few difference makers to fill in around solid players. Once you have that in place you have to coach them up and motivate them.
I actually think Art Briles is a genius offensively and a lot of places have yet to keep up with him. But you may have found the one program so far in this thread that would support your point. I will research this one. (edit: research below, does not support your point).
Last edited:
Year, Record (Conference), Rivals Recruiting Ranking
Under Guy Morriss
2003, (1-7)
2004, (1-7),
2005, (2-6), 59
2006, (3-5), 68
2007, (0-8), 64
Under Art Briles
2008, (2-6), 51
2009, (1-7), 55
2010, (4-4), 39
2011, (6-3), 46
2012, (4-5), 45
2013, (8-1), 31
2014, (8-1), 35
2015, (6-2), 43
Do those numbers support that he's a great recruiter? I'd say that he's a better talent evaluator than Rivals. His recruiting rankings are well below what anyone would expect from a top 10 or so program the last few years. Briles definitely had the fortune of a great QB as you say. I cannot see that these numbers show that he "outrecruited Baylor's lot in life" and that's how he turned the program.
Under Guy Morriss
2003, (1-7)
2004, (1-7),
2005, (2-6), 59
2006, (3-5), 68
2007, (0-8), 64
Under Art Briles
2008, (2-6), 51
2009, (1-7), 55
2010, (4-4), 39
2011, (6-3), 46
2012, (4-5), 45
2013, (8-1), 31
2014, (8-1), 35
2015, (6-2), 43
Do those numbers support that he's a great recruiter? I'd say that he's a better talent evaluator than Rivals. His recruiting rankings are well below what anyone would expect from a top 10 or so program the last few years. Briles definitely had the fortune of a great QB as you say. I cannot see that these numbers show that he "outrecruited Baylor's lot in life" and that's how he turned the program.
Where are the great turnaround stories pulled off by the mystically great recruiters? Certainly we can find a few?
Whether true or not, are you really going to use an ESPN quote about recruiting to support a point?
BlackNGold
Club Member
Why - you ignore everything anyone posts and try to spin your opinion as fact. By the way.- since you believe that winning helps recruiting you should move your recruiting rankings up a place in your table. Like Baylor went 1-7 in conference in 2009 and had the 39th ranked class in 2010 which is the class after the season plus the 2008 class at 51 was not Briles . If CU consistently recruited in the top 50 we would have a lot better team, IMO.
BlackNGold
Club Member
Sure - you used your buddy in Arizona opinion to support that Gehrke was a great pickup as a QB. Using ESPN is a step up from that. I apologize that it did not match your opinion.
Guy Morriss' one conference win? Versus CU. Therefore, Guy Morriss > GB. FACT.
It's an opinion I passed on (sort of like the George King opinion that got everyone so worked up with 2 years ago). The results are in and Gehrke did not turn out to be a great QB pickup. But I can hardly blame the staff foesperately searching for a late JC pickup given that Stevie Dorman and Shane Dillon is what they had just worked with in the Spring (while Sefo was watching as a High School Senior during that time). ESPN playing loose with their facts (and being too lazy to research things) does not make it a step up. It's just some guys opinion. Just like Neuheisel is a QB genius...
Art Briles finds great football players that are passed up by others. In fact, it's the area he's taken heat but he's effectively closed those lips. His success is not because he's recruiting top 25 classes though. He's just recruiting guys that fit his system and finding really good football players.
So far, this seems to be a hallmark of most turnarounds, rather than recruiting splashes. The big splashes aren't seen until several years later when those same kids are going to the NFL.
The records and classes are for the year they happened.
The 2015 class signed in February and the 2015 W-L record is for that same year. I think that's made pretty clear.
As for my opinion, it's based on looking at the facts. If you can dispute these facts, please do. I will look at the W-L record and recruiting rankings of any turnaround scenario you can come up with (or anyone else). This is transparent. All comers are welcome.
It's a long held "fact" that recruiting rankings somehow are a precursor to a turnaround, and I've never found the facts to support that. Good recruiting always is, but that's rarely captured in the recruiting rankings. Possibly a bias by the services? They like Texas' class better than Baylors always. But Baylor has better players.
Speaking of Tedford, how about Sonny Dykes' turning around Cal?
Year, Rivals Recruiting Ranking, Record (Conference)
Tedford
2010, 11, (3-6)
2011, 17, (4-5)
2012, 23, (2-7)
Dykes:
2013, 32, (0-9)
2014, 46, (3-6)
2015, 29, (4-5)
Tedford was still recruiting well at the end of his tenure (Tosh Lupoi left in Jan 2012), so Dykes inherited a team who's talent should have been much higher than the records indicated. A top QB (Goff) and fixing their Defense has had a lot to do with their quick rebound.
Year, Rivals Recruiting Ranking, Record (Conference)
Tedford
2010, 11, (3-6)
2011, 17, (4-5)
2012, 23, (2-7)
Dykes:
2013, 32, (0-9)
2014, 46, (3-6)
2015, 29, (4-5)
Tedford was still recruiting well at the end of his tenure (Tosh Lupoi left in Jan 2012), so Dykes inherited a team who's talent should have been much higher than the records indicated. A top QB (Goff) and fixing their Defense has had a lot to do with their quick rebound.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
So Cal had a reasonably talented roster, and a top line QB and that helped lead a turnaround, how about that.
The premise here has been turnarounds of down-n-out programs. Don't remember USC ever needing to be rebuilt. How about that?
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Because despite their problems, they had talent. We don't need any though, we're going to coach our way out of the cellar!
fatbuff
Member
JFC, a good recruiter doesn't try to get the highest star average on Rivals, he goes after and gets the players that he feels will improve his particular program. The problem with Mike's classes isn't the lack of Rivals stars, it's the lack of winning recruits over that have other P5 offers. You can't make a hypothesis using recruiting rankings, when the rankings themselves are arbitrary. It reminds me of your year to year point differential argument that doesn't hold water because the teams change so much from year to year. The consensus is that recruiting is the most important factor in CF success. I've never heard anybody but Buffaholic argue otherwise.
Bison
Retired poster. Have a good life!
After former 2* players Jimmy Smith and Nate Solder were drafted in the NFL Draft's first round, I was like why should I pay attention to the recruiting services?
It seems like we have not had a large senior & junior class in awhile which we will have next season. Perhaps that should count for something.
It seems like we have not had a large senior & junior class in awhile which we will have next season. Perhaps that should count for something.
BlackNGold
Club Member
They were both 3 star recruits on Rivals with 5.6 RR ratings and other P5 offers. They were not highly recruited but they were not as low as you want everyone to believe.
Bison
Retired poster. Have a good life!
Even if I'm wrong, recruiting is still too much of an inexact science to follow.
Exactly. From the same era, we could point to Jalil Brown and Speedy as the 2* guys who were highly productive at CU and talented enough to earn some professional money. MacIntyre definitely needs to scout well and find those types of players because they tip the balance in a big way. Hopefully he has. But Solder and Smith? Those are simply the star rating & offer list level of the guys most of us want to make up the bulk of the HCMM recruiting classes. A handful will end up being high NFL picks, a handful will get drafted in lower rounds, most will be solid contributors in the 2-deep who don't have much of a future in football beyond college, a good number won't do a whole lot here, and a handful will completely wash out for whatever reason.
This is all we've asked for in recruiting for the first part of the rebuild -- Boise State and Cincinnati level talent with high football character to set a foundation, stabilize the roster, allow the possibility of winning enough to get to a bowl game. We can incrementally improve (or springboard, if we're lucky) from there.
I will say that 'holic is definitely being deliberately obtuse in this thread. Acknowledge that you have a point of view (we all do), and don't ignore evidence and arguments that lead to different conclusions.
That said - the "this staff needs to recruit better" crowd would also be served to critically look at rebuilds at other schools.
I decided to do a deeper dive into Cutcliffe at Duke, for a few reasons:
1. It's a rebuild that MM is very familiar with,
2. many people believe it's the basic blueprint for what he wants to do here,
3. their academic standards are probably equal to or greater than CU's, and
4. like CU, they really, really sucked before.
Here's Cutcliffe's recruiting record at Duke:
[table=head]
Year|2008|2009|2010|2011|2012|2013
Conference Record Year Before|0-8|1-7|3-5|1-7|1-7|3-5
National Rank|65|51|72|72|52|68
Conference Rank|12|9|12|11|9|11
# Commits|17|27|20|20|20|20
Average Star|2.4|2.6|2.5|2.6|2.6|2.6
Average Rating|5.4|5.4|5.5|5.5|5.5|5.5
# of 4*|0|2|0|0|1|0
# of 5*|0|0|0|0|0|0
# w/ other P5 Offers|||11|11|12|13
% w/ other P5 Offers|||55%|55%|60%|65%
Conference Record that Fall|1-7|3-5|1-7|1-7|3-5|6-2[/table]
Here's MacIntyre's recruiting record at Colorado:
[table=head]
Year|2013|2014|2015|2016
Conference Record Year Before|1-8|1-8|0-9|1-8
National Rank|68|63|71|74
Conference Rank|12|10|11|12
# Commits|21|23|18|11
Average Star|2.7|2.7|2.8|2.7
Average Rating|5.5|5.5|5.5|5.5
# of 4*|0|1|0|1
# of 5*|0|0|0|0
# w/ other P5 Offers|10|12|4|6
% w/ other P5 Offers|48%|52%|22%|55%
Conference Record that Fall|1-8|0-9|1-8|[/table]
Data Notes:
1. I'm using Rivals data
2. Rivals doesn't readily list offers (only interest) prior to 2011, and I'm not doing that much research
3. If a recruit had 1 other P5 offer (even if it was Iowa State or Wake Forest), it's a P5 offer
Here's what I noticed going through all of this:
1. Most recruiting metrics and rankings (average stars, average rating, national rank, conference rank) show that Colorado isn't really that far from the formula Cutcliffe followed. 'Holic has a point here.
2. With one exception, MM's classes have about the same percentage of recruits with other P5 offers.
3. That exception is glaringly bad, and it was MM's 3rd class (i.e. it'd be more forgivable if it was his first).
4. The table doesn't show this, but until this year (i.e. after the staff changes) there is also a difference in the quantity of P5 offers. By quantity, I mean that MM's recruits with other P5 offers generally have only one other offer; Cutcliffe had his share of only one other offer, but he had quite a few with 3+.
5. Also not shown on the table is the "quality" of the other P5 offers. By quality, I mean that the P5 recruiting battles that MM's staff has won have been almost exclusively against three schools: Iowa State, Washington State and Oregon State. While Cutcliffe's staff had it's share of recruiting wins against Wake Forest and Vanderbilt, they were also winning battles against North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Miami and, wait for it.... Stanford.
It's not a simple picture. By some metrics MM is recruiting about where you would expect someone who is rebuilding a program should be recruiting, but by other metrics, he (and his staff) need to step up their game. Also notably: in no area is the recruiting exceeding expectations - that's definitely something to keep in mind.
Using Cutcliffe's performance at Duke as the baseline, this would be my evaluation of recruiting:
[table=head]
Metric|Evaluation
Average Stars|Meets Expectations
Average Rating|Meets Expectations
Class Ranking|Meets Expectations
% of Class with other P5 Offers|Well Below Expectations in 2015, Meets in other years
Wins recruiting battles|Below Expectations
Overall|Needs improvement[/table]
That said - the "this staff needs to recruit better" crowd would also be served to critically look at rebuilds at other schools.
I decided to do a deeper dive into Cutcliffe at Duke, for a few reasons:
1. It's a rebuild that MM is very familiar with,
2. many people believe it's the basic blueprint for what he wants to do here,
3. their academic standards are probably equal to or greater than CU's, and
4. like CU, they really, really sucked before.
Here's Cutcliffe's recruiting record at Duke:
[table=head]
Year|2008|2009|2010|2011|2012|2013
Conference Record Year Before|0-8|1-7|3-5|1-7|1-7|3-5
National Rank|65|51|72|72|52|68
Conference Rank|12|9|12|11|9|11
# Commits|17|27|20|20|20|20
Average Star|2.4|2.6|2.5|2.6|2.6|2.6
Average Rating|5.4|5.4|5.5|5.5|5.5|5.5
# of 4*|0|2|0|0|1|0
# of 5*|0|0|0|0|0|0
# w/ other P5 Offers|||11|11|12|13
% w/ other P5 Offers|||55%|55%|60%|65%
Conference Record that Fall|1-7|3-5|1-7|1-7|3-5|6-2[/table]
Here's MacIntyre's recruiting record at Colorado:
[table=head]
Year|2013|2014|2015|2016
Conference Record Year Before|1-8|1-8|0-9|1-8
National Rank|68|63|71|74
Conference Rank|12|10|11|12
# Commits|21|23|18|11
Average Star|2.7|2.7|2.8|2.7
Average Rating|5.5|5.5|5.5|5.5
# of 4*|0|1|0|1
# of 5*|0|0|0|0
# w/ other P5 Offers|10|12|4|6
% w/ other P5 Offers|48%|52%|22%|55%
Conference Record that Fall|1-8|0-9|1-8|[/table]
Data Notes:
1. I'm using Rivals data
2. Rivals doesn't readily list offers (only interest) prior to 2011, and I'm not doing that much research
3. If a recruit had 1 other P5 offer (even if it was Iowa State or Wake Forest), it's a P5 offer
Here's what I noticed going through all of this:
1. Most recruiting metrics and rankings (average stars, average rating, national rank, conference rank) show that Colorado isn't really that far from the formula Cutcliffe followed. 'Holic has a point here.
2. With one exception, MM's classes have about the same percentage of recruits with other P5 offers.
3. That exception is glaringly bad, and it was MM's 3rd class (i.e. it'd be more forgivable if it was his first).
4. The table doesn't show this, but until this year (i.e. after the staff changes) there is also a difference in the quantity of P5 offers. By quantity, I mean that MM's recruits with other P5 offers generally have only one other offer; Cutcliffe had his share of only one other offer, but he had quite a few with 3+.
5. Also not shown on the table is the "quality" of the other P5 offers. By quality, I mean that the P5 recruiting battles that MM's staff has won have been almost exclusively against three schools: Iowa State, Washington State and Oregon State. While Cutcliffe's staff had it's share of recruiting wins against Wake Forest and Vanderbilt, they were also winning battles against North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Miami and, wait for it.... Stanford.
It's not a simple picture. By some metrics MM is recruiting about where you would expect someone who is rebuilding a program should be recruiting, but by other metrics, he (and his staff) need to step up their game. Also notably: in no area is the recruiting exceeding expectations - that's definitely something to keep in mind.
Using Cutcliffe's performance at Duke as the baseline, this would be my evaluation of recruiting:
[table=head]
Metric|Evaluation
Average Stars|Meets Expectations
Average Rating|Meets Expectations
Class Ranking|Meets Expectations
% of Class with other P5 Offers|Well Below Expectations in 2015, Meets in other years
Wins recruiting battles|Below Expectations
Overall|Needs improvement[/table]